Study estimates 655,000 Iraqi deaths due to invasion

CurvyEm · 10-13-2006, 12:46 PM

LONDON (Reuters) - American and Iraqi public health experts have calculated that about 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent violence, far above previous estimates.

Researchers used household interviews rather than body counts to estimate how many more Iraqis had died because of the war than used to die annually in peacetime. "We estimate that as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation," said Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the United States.

That means 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population have died because of the invasion and ensuing strife, he said.

The team's study, published online by the medical journal The Lancet, estimated pre-war deaths in Iraq at 143,000 a year, and said Iraq's death rate is now 2-1/2 times that of the pre-war period. "Although such death rates might be common in times of war, the combination of a long duration and tens of millions of people affected has made this the deadliest international conflict of the 21st century," Burnham said.

More -

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...e-C1-topNews-2

1300 Class · 10-13-2006, 03:41 PM

Seems like a lot. I wonder what the death rate under Saddam was like. Would be an interesting comparison.

nosaj · 10-13-2006, 03:45 PM

It's also in the hundreds of thousands. Hussein killed nearly 200,000 during the entirety of his reign and the war with Iran killed over 1 million on both sides (so roughly 500,000 Iraqis...and the purpose of that particular war, ironically, was to curb Islamic fundamentalism. He was supported by the Reagan administration.)

1300 Class · 10-13-2006, 03:50 PM

Saddam was sported by alot of Arab states that did alot to keep them going.

nosaj · 10-13-2006, 03:52 PM

That is certainly true. I'll give you that.

1300 Class · 10-13-2006, 04:28 PM

He could have been utilized against Iran. The again this administration never was much on forward planning and thinking.

CurvaceousBBWLover · 10-13-2006, 06:49 PM

The United States has already played Iran and Iraq against each other. That was an old strategy from the Reagan era.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Australian Lord

He could have been utilized against Iran. The again this administration never was much on forward planning and thinking.

1300 Class · 10-13-2006, 06:56 PM

I suppose something from that time haven't been totally corrupted yet... It difficult I suppose, I mean I can only speak of Reagans presidency in a historical sense.

djewell · 10-13-2006, 07:53 PM

but its worth it because we're bringing democracy to the middle east. peace and freedom.

</sarcasm>

1300 Class · 10-13-2006, 08:57 PM

I wonder if anyone really stills believe that?

CurvaceousBBWLover · 10-15-2006, 11:20 AM

Who are we, the United States, to think that we have right to forcibly impose democracy on the rest of the world? LOL

I'm certain that the fanactics who got us into this quagmire want the public to believe we are helping the Iraqi people. In a way we did. But, you cannot bring peace with a sword or a machine gun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djewell

but its worth it because we're bringing democracy to the middle east. peace and freedom.

</sarcasm>

Paul Fannin · 10-30-2006, 08:42 PM

655,000? Hmmmm, Saddam's rendezvous with Satan ain't gonna be pretty. Just think if he'd complied with the UN resolutions, he'd have 655,000 less deaths for which to answer in eternity.

ssbbwlover2 · 10-30-2006, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Fannin

655,000? Hmmmm, Saddam's rendezvous with Satan ain't gonna be pretty. Just think if he'd complied with the UN resolutions, he'd have 655,000 less deaths for which to answer in eternity.

So, the deaths caused by our invasion is Saddam's fault even though by all accounts he did not have WMD, or any of the chemical weapons prohibited by the UN resolutions? Saddam was a bad guy who deserves all that he will get in this life and in hell. We were wrong to invade Iraq.

Paul Fannin · 10-30-2006, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssbbwlover2

So, the deaths caused by our invasion is Saddam's fault even though by all accounts he did not have WMD, or any of the chemical weapons prohibited by the UN resolutions? Saddam was a bad guy who deserves all that he will get in this life and in hell. We were wrong to invade Iraq.

No we weren't.

Don't lose your will.

If we don't lose ours, we will prevail.

Doing what's right isn't always comfortable, nor is it easy.

"Gird up your loins, fresh courage take"

ssbbwlover2 · 10-30-2006, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Fannin

No we weren't.

Don't lose your will.

If we don't lose ours, we will prevail.

Doing what's right isn't always comfortable, nor is it easy.

"Gird up your loins, fresh courage take"

Tell that to the families who are losing loved ones daily. 100 + this month alone. They are the ones making the sacrifice. Honestly, Iraq is on the verge of a civil war if not already there. We created this mess. Will power alone will not fix it. Strong leadership that is based on dialogue with the Iraqis is needed not what we currently have where the Envoy is acting more like a Viceroy giving orders not as a diplomat.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20061...2347-8716r.htm

Burtimus · 10-30-2006, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Fannin

No we weren't.

Don't lose your will.

If we don't lose ours, we will prevail.

Doing what's right isn't always comfortable, nor is it easy.

"Gird up your loins, fresh courage take"

Heh. Right. Without a strategy, there is no war plan. Without a war plan, we are fighting the enemy's war. And that, Mr. Fannin, is exactly what is happening. Our military, through no fault of their own, has ceded both the initiative and the battlespace over to the insurgents. The civilian command, comprising primarily the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief, have failed to provide for strategy beyond their immediate political concerns. This has put every man and woman in uniform directly into the crosshairs, and has allowed the insurgency (and concomitant terrorist activities) to gain the high ground.

Doing what is right is no longer an option. That would have been pouring troops and materiel into the war effort in the actual theatre of war: Afghanistan. Our President instead elected to waste manpower, money, and American lives in a pointless conflict which anyone could have told you would destabilize the region and detract from what should have been our focus.

Mini · 10-30-2006, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Fannin

No we weren't.

Don't lose your will.

If we don't lose ours, we will prevail.

Doing what's right isn't always comfortable, nor is it easy.

"Gird up your loins, fresh courage take"

It's easy to shit mindless platitudes when one is in no danger of having a cap, or many caps, busted in one's ass.

Paul Fannin · 10-31-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini

It's easy to shit mindless platitudes when one is in no danger of having a cap, or many caps, busted in one's ass.

Wars are won just as much on the homefront as they are on the battlefield, Mini. The terrorist cannot defeat us on the battlefield and they know it. Their aim is to defeat our national will here at home. Many of them believe, like Bin Laden, that we can't stomach the sacrifice and that we'll bail out like we did in Somalia.

I support the war on terror and in particular the one waged on the Iraqi front and I will not be persuaded otherwise. There is a right and wrong, Burt, and this one is right.

Burtimus · 10-31-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Fannin

Wars are won just as much on the homefront as they are on the battlefield, Mini. The terrorist cannot defeat us on the battlefield and they know it. Their aim is to defeat our national will here at home. Many of them believe, like Bin Laden, that we can't stomach the sacrifice and that we'll bail out like we did in Somalia.

I support the war on terror and in particular the one waged on the Iraqi front and I will not be persuaded otherwise. There is a right and wrong, Burt, and this one is right.

The Iraqi front had no terrorists, according to the President. Are you disagreeing? Why do you hate America, Paul?

Ultimately, I am not interested in persuading anyone to believe something contrary to what they believe. You are welcome to think as you like, Paul, and you have my blessings.

Facts, on the other hand, are facts. I really hate seeing them misrepresented, especially from those on my side of the political fence. It demeans the person and their point of view, in my opinion.

Mini · 10-31-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Fannin

Wars are won just as much on the homefront as they are on the battlefield, Mini. The terrorist cannot defeat us on the battlefield and they know it.

Let me guess: They shoulda won Vietnam, too, but they just didn't have the stomach to ride it out.

FreeThinker · 10-31-2006, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini

Let me guess: They shoulda won Vietnam, too, but they just didn't have the stomach to ride it out.

"An army travels on its stomach" -- Napoleon Bonaparte

Mini · 10-31-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeThinker

"An army travels on its stomach" -- Napoleon Bonaparte

Seems ineffecient.

FreeThinker · 10-31-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini

Seems ineffecient.

Sidewinders seem to get around pretty quickly that way.

(Em, let us know if this hijacking is annoying you.)

Mini · 10-31-2006, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeThinker

Sidewinders seem to get around pretty quickly that way.

(Em, let us know if this hijacking is annoying you.)

Hmm, good point. We should all be more like snakes. Specifically, talking snakes, 'cause I want an apple.

FreeThinker · 10-31-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini

Hmm, good point. We should all be more like snakes.

Quote:

'Snake Song', by Townes VanZandt:

You can't hold me, I'm too slippery
I do no sleepin', I get lonely
You can touch me if you want to
I got poison, I just might bite you

Lie in circles on the sunlight
Shine like diamonds on a dark night
Ain't no mercy in my smilin'
Only fangs and sweet beguiling

The future, he don't try to find me
Skin I've been through dies behind me
Solid hollow wrapped in hatred
Not a drop of venom wasted

You can slip and try to find me
Hold your breath and flat deny me
It makes no difference to my thinkin'
I'll be here when you start sinkin'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini

Specifically, talking snakes, 'cause I want an apple.

I've got one, and I'm quite happy with her!

10-13-2006, 12:46 PM	#1
CurvyEm Panda. Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 4,593	Study estimates 655,000 Iraqi deaths due to invasion LONDON (Reuters) - American and Iraqi public health experts have calculated that about 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent violence, far above previous estimates. Researchers used household interviews rather than body counts to estimate how many more Iraqis had died because of the war than used to die annually in peacetime. "We estimate that as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation," said Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the United States. That means 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population have died because of the invasion and ensuing strife, he said. The team's study, published online by the medical journal The Lancet, estimated pre-war deaths in Iraq at 143,000 a year, and said Iraq's death rate is now 2-1/2 times that of the pre-war period. "Although such death rates might be common in times of war, the combination of a long duration and tens of millions of people affected has made this the deadliest international conflict of the 21st century," Burnham said. More - http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...e-C1-topNews-2

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-13-2006, 03:41 PM	#2
1300 Class Smug Annoying Centrist Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,947	Seems like a lot. I wonder what the death rate under Saddam was like. Would be an interesting comparison.

10-13-2006, 03:45 PM	#3
nosaj Paster of Muppets Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NJ Posts: 228	It's also in the hundreds of thousands. Hussein killed nearly 200,000 during the entirety of his reign and the war with Iran killed over 1 million on both sides (so roughly 500,000 Iraqis...and the purpose of that particular war, ironically, was to curb Islamic fundamentalism. He was supported by the Reagan administration.)

10-13-2006, 03:50 PM	#4
1300 Class Smug Annoying Centrist Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,947	Saddam was sported by alot of Arab states that did alot to keep them going.

10-13-2006, 03:52 PM	#5
nosaj Paster of Muppets Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NJ Posts: 228	That is certainly true. I'll give you that.

10-13-2006, 04:28 PM	#6
1300 Class Smug Annoying Centrist Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,947	He could have been utilized against Iran. The again this administration never was much on forward planning and thinking.

10-13-2006, 06:56 PM	#8
1300 Class Smug Annoying Centrist Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,947	I suppose something from that time haven't been totally corrupted yet... It difficult I suppose, I mean I can only speak of Reagans presidency in a historical sense.

10-13-2006, 07:53 PM	#9
djewell el judeo Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: LA Posts: 497	but its worth it because we're bringing democracy to the middle east. peace and freedom. </sarcasm>

10-13-2006, 08:57 PM	#10
1300 Class Smug Annoying Centrist Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,947	I wonder if anyone really stills believe that?

10-30-2006, 08:42 PM	#12
Paul Fannin Banned Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Gustine, CA Posts: 983	655,000? Hmmmm, Saddam's rendezvous with Satan ain't gonna be pretty. Just think if he'd complied with the UN resolutions, he'd have 655,000 less deaths for which to answer in eternity.